6N 2016: Scotland v England, 6 February

Billy and Kruis stood out for me.

And Jamie George improved things when he came on.

Farrell should probably move to 10 as ford looks so off the pace.
But farrell annoys me alot. There was NO need for that shove in the back . That sums him up.

England executed a more conservative game ( lots of box kicks) plan and did it well.
Scotland tried to spread it wide but 10, 11, 13 and 14 were either on poor form or just back from injury. In hindsight big Vern would have been better to employ Taylor as our starting 13 and left Bennet for the bench.
Also Ford had his poorest lineout display for about two seasons. Threw squint on at least three occasions.If you cant do the basics right then you aint going to win games at this level.
Hats off to Hartley, his throwing was more accurate and he kept his cool. Should be having a word with Farrell about how to keep a lid on his temper. He's going to come a cropper sooner or later if he doesnt cut out the swinging arms and stupid pushes.

I am gutted by this - not so much by the loss but by the nature of it. England played a very limited game and did not really use their dangerous strike runners much at all. We simply couldn't even execute our gameplan at all. Too many mistakes, too many turnovers costing feild poisition and possession.

We made more yards, more breaks, beat more defenders - but blew at least two try scoring opportunities.

I think its down to a lack of form from too many players plus I think Cotter made a couple of errors - bringing on Swinson for Gray being the most obvious.

If we had been beaten by a team playing good rugby then I could accept that - but we weren't. We were beaten by a team playing a very limited game. We should have been able to run them ragged especially as they kept kicking the ball to us.

Very poor, very disheartening

England defended well also but granted didn't look under pressure bar 15 min 1st half.

GeordieFalcon wrote:And Jamie George improved things when he came on.  

Second person to say that. He was on for just over three minutes.

Not sure what he improved in the briefest of cameos. the scrum improved when the Scottish replacements came on - so longt before George appeared.

Any of the other coaches watching that game won't be fazed by either team.
England undoubtedly deserved the win because they brought more aggression and had Billy V on their side. However such was the poor quality that Scotland could easily have won it if they had a place kicker whose range was beyond the 10m line.
The English pack won the match despite decent shifts by Nel, JGray and Hardie. In the English backline Nowell was the only one who looked in any way impressive, but Hogg was the stand-out back on the pitch.
Neither 10 looked Test standard, and the kick by Russell with Hogg outside him was just risible. I was surprised that Laidlaw even attempted his second penalty as it looked on the edge of his range, and if he's not scoring from the tee surely Cotter has to wonder what he is really bringing to this team.

I am not so disappointed with Russell's kick after the intercept. Sure he could have passed it but at the same time, if it have stayed in field, Hogg would have been on it. The decision wasn't overly bad, just the bounce of the ball.

Are we starting to see the early years of a sarries game plan?

sarries have been very limited until recently when they added an attacking edge to their game.

LondonTiger wrote:

GeordieFalcon wrote:And Jamie George improved things when he came on.  

Second person to say that. He was on for just over three minutes.

Not sure what he improved in the briefest of cameos. the scrum improved when the Scottish replacements came on - so longt before George appeared.

I agree. I fail to see what aspect of the game he could possibly said to have improved.

I know lots of people dislike Hartley but he had a solid game. Line out was very solid and scrum was OK.

Exiledinborders wrote:

LondonTiger wrote:

GeordieFalcon wrote:And Jamie George improved things when he came on.  

Second person to say that. He was on for just over three minutes.

Not sure what he improved in the briefest of cameos. the scrum improved when the Scottish replacements came on - so longt before George appeared.

I agree. I fail to see what aspect of the game he could possibly said to have improved.

I know lots of people dislike Hartley but he had a solid game. Line out was very solid and scrum was OK.

I think he's going on the one scrum George was involved in that England marched forward. Of course there were far more variables to it than just Goerge coming on.

A good solid win for England,outstanding defence,Vunipola outstanding but to many penalties conceded at breakdown.
As an Anglo-Scot I was on a winner either way Scotland createdchances but didn't finish them ,poor ball retention by them
some wrong options taken.[a couple of kickable penalties ignored going for the try.]
Scrappy game both sides will get better,for EJ first match win was vital to keep press of his back Ford/Farrell didn't
work that well,breakdown area still messy.
France scraped past Italy[who shouldn't be written off big match today . ?

Well that was a bit disappointing

First of all, well done to England. This was a game they just had to get a win and they managed that.

I think what they showed us was that we were are lacking real threatening ball carriers (Du Preez wouldn't have gone amiss). We just didn't get decent, front-foot ball and our backs were not deep enough. It was a forward battle (neither set of backs apart from the Nowell try, were that instrumental) and we lacked grunt. Perhaps someone like Harley would be a good addition?

The only players that really stood out for me were Hogg and, erm, well Hogg.

nathan wrote:Are we starting to see the early years of a sarries game plan?

sarries have been very limited until recently when they added an attacking edge to their game.

May well be...

Also pretty much a carbon copy of Lancasters first game

Exiledinborders as a critic of Hartley I have given credit to Hartley he had a solid game. Still think George could do better.

Geordiefalcon Farrell is an idiot but should be starting 10.

It's a risk but as Eddie Jones seems to rate Devoto really highly I would partner him with Joseph against Italy.

Yes Londontiger only 4 minutes, should have had more.

I wouldn't be upset if the team you want plays vs Italy.

To be honest I was disappointed by both 9s, 10 and 12.

I saw the poor technique in tackling by Farrell too. Needs to cut out the high tackles and petulance.

I have just read the Guardians match report and player analysis. My TV must have something wrong with it; The game I saw had nothing to do with the match report and player analysis I read about.

Dean Ryan's write up is in direct contradiction of the ratings. Care gets a 7, Ryan says he struggled and kicked poorly, being a typical example.

Jones needs a complete rethink of his playmakers. The pack did OK but will benefit from a better balanced back row and the outside backs are potent. 9,10 and 12 is a problem. Care was not his usual self, Ford is not playing as well as he can and well..I just don't see what anyone sees in Farrell apart from as a kicker. He is simply not good enough as a 10 or 12.

I agree with you guys.  The ratings in The Guardian appear to almost always start with a 5 and rarely exceed 7.  Not every player was in this narrow box.  
Ryan's analysis was much better, though the ratings are mine:
I agree with Ryan and would have given Ford a 4.  He did absolutely nothing that other Premiership 10s couldn't do.  Showed us nothing.  He actually made a tackle!
Farrell was probably confused because he can't count to 12.  Was somewhat better, but really added not so much.  His kicking was sub-standard, certainly based on his excellent track record.  Stupid, mindless penalty at the end, might have cost England points.  5/6
Care was slower and flapped his arms at every breakdown opportunity.  Just get the ball out, son.  5.
Youngs tried to inject more pace, but almost lost England the match with that dumb offload to Russell.  5.

Nowell was quite good at times. Was in perfect position for his try.  Needs to lose that facial growth above his upper lip.  WTF is that?  7.
Watson was up and down, tried to make something happen but is under-powered going into contact or gets nervous.  7.
Brown, great, really terrific, under high kicks, not much else.  5.  

Billy V. was obviously terrific.  9.  He and Stuart Hogg were head and shoulders the best players on the pitch.
Haskell didn't injure any goal posts and made a boat load of tackles.  Few running opportunitites, but breakdown work mediocre, need better.  6 (for his tackles, not breakdown work)
Robshaw did all the grunt work he always does.  Good man.  6
Kruis was good, tends to tackle high which give up an extra yard or so, but I am quibbling.  made a lot of them. 7.
Launchbury, seemed off his game and a step slow, possibly, as suggested, still carrying injury. 5.
Lawes was better, not great, but an overall improvement.  6.
Cole, please don't enter rucks from the side.  Please?  Scrummaged OK 6.
Hartley showed he could go almost the full distance.  Subbed for fresh legs in the decisive last few minutes only.  Surprised me. 7.
Marler.  Was he there?  Scrummaged OK, runs like Mother Theresa.    4.

edit:  Just realised I omitted JJ from my ratings.  Anyone who can play centre and make such a small impact gets a 4.  I think I was nice to a few players in my ratings.

beshocked wrote:Exiledinborders as a critic of Hartley I have given credit to Hartley he had a solid game. Still think George could do better.

Geordiefalcon Farrell is an idiot but should be starting 10.

It's a risk but as Eddie Jones seems to rate Devoto really highly I would partner him with Joseph against Italy.

Yes Londontiger only 4 minutes, should have had more.

I wouldn't be upset if the team you want plays vs Italy.

To be honest I was disappointed by both 9s, 10 and 12.

I saw the poor technique in tackling by Farrell too. Needs to cut out the high tackles and petulance.

Agree on Farrell tackling high. The aggression Farrell throws into his defence is great but only if he can keep his cool and stick to solid technique. If he keeps going high looking for a youtube clip tackle then eventually he's going to get brushed of by a stronger runner and it will lead to a try.

He should be starting at 10 though and hopefully defending in his usual channel will see him keep his head a bit better.

For Italy I'd start Devoto at 12 and bring Daly onto the bench for Goode. Youngs, Ford and Daly would offer some real impact late in a game.

Mako also deserves a start and I hope Jones makes the tough call and replaces Robshaw or Haskell with Clifford or Kvesic. Neither of them did anything to deserve being dropped but once again we lacked any real threat at the breakdown. It's time to actually reassess the back row balance.

I've never liked the two fly-halves on the pitch option.

A good start for England who simply had to win. Eddie would have been burnt toast if England had lost. So, massive credit to him and the team. The game was full of over excited errors but also full of endeavor. A great call by Eddie to have Care starting. If any player looked off the boil and a little caught in the headlights it was Ben Youngs. He was slow and ponderous at the breakdown and seemed intent on waiting for the Scotland defence to get in position before releasing the ball. His box kicking was also very poor. His intercept pass that should have lost us the game was symptomatic. If only Simpson was fit I'd drop Youngs in a flash. I'd be very happy to see the same starting team run out next week.

Scottrf wrote:I've never liked the two fly-halves on the pitch option.

Drop Farrell, cos I don't like him

kingelderfield wrote:

Scottrf wrote:I've never liked the two fly-halves on the pitch option.

Drop Farrell, cos I don't like him

Yes he has spooky eyes doesn't he?

Hey Biggarema!!!!

Shifty - this is the Scotland England thread. We have been having a decent discussion about the Scots and England teams. Want to buzz off and annoy others please. You are not welcome on here

I don't like Farrell when he's a petulant idiot. Which, let's face it, is quite often. However, he is miles ahead of Ford in terms of form at the moment. I think we definitely need to stop doing the "2 tens" experiment right now. Start Farrell at 10, use a PROPER 12 and as stated above have a bench of Youngs, Ford & Daly. I also think that the back row isn't right either. I think that as a result of the RWC debacle, Robshaw has lost a bit of self-belief and is not quite what he can be. I'd start Haskell at 6 (as he is doing really well at the moment) and Kvesic at 7.

I personally would like Cipriani in the squad, but I can't see that happening unless there's an injury...

Was thinking about it when I was walking around tesco bored senseless, and I might have changed my mind re: selection for next week from my earlier comments.

I think long term the pack needs more carriers, and we need someone who can be a bit more direct at 12. So why not start addressing these points now?

Mako, Brookes and Itoje could all come into the starting lineup and offer an improvement to the carrying game. With Brookes working his way back from injury, I'd omit him, but I'd bring in Mako and possibly Itoje too (in place of Launchbury who can go get a full game for his club) to add carriers.

For 12, he may not be the long term solution but we should go with what we've got with Devoto. Even if he's a stopgap, it will allow us to play our form 10 at 10.

My 23:
Mako Vunipola, Hartley, Cole, Itoje, Kruis, Haskell, Clifford, Billy Vunipola.
Care, Farrell, Nowell, Devoto, Joseph, Watson, Brown.
George, Marler, Hill, Lawes, Kvesic, Ben Youngs, Ford, Daly.

I think that isn't a million miles away from our strongest team and probably would be able to play the gameplan we should be using to best utilise our players, although I still think replacing Brown with a second playmaker in the long term will make us a more well rounded team.

I am surprised that people weren't delighted with James Haskell. I thought he was a key player for England and was crucial in stopping the big ball carriers for Scotland. He was very effective at the breakdown (it isn't always about turnovers) and basically had a very good game for a blindside flanker. Which is probably where he should be battling with Robshaw to allow another option to play at 7.

Rory_Gallagher wrote:I am surprised that people weren't delighted with James Haskell. I thought he was a key player for England and was crucial in stopping the big ball carriers for Scotland. He was very effective at the breakdown (it isn't always about turnovers) and basically had a very good game for a blindside flanker. Which is probably where he should be battling with Robshaw to allow another option to play at 7.

I agree. I thought Haskell played OK but he is a blindside. Next game I would play him there and try Kvesic or failing that Clifford at seven.

Rory

I think that's one thing with playing two 7s against two 6s. Scotland were looking to put pressure on the breakdown, but lost out on tackling and couldn't live with Vunipola.

Thinking not later in the tournament, it will be interesting to see if Wales stick with Tipuric and Warburton or they bring in Lydiate to counter Vunipola.

I'd imagine there will only be a small number of changes, but I'd like to see:

Clifford in at 7, with Haskell moved to 6.(Possible)
Farrell moved to 10, with Ford benched.(Possible)
Devoto starting at 12 (Possible)
Daly starting at 13, with JJ benched (Unlikely)
Goode starting at 15 with Brown dropped (Unlikely)
Lawes starting with Launchbury on the bench (Possible).

Wrong thread Shift

Sgt_Pooly wrote:Wrong thread Shift

Yup quite right, thats what you get for posting off an Apple IPhone, my eyes are too old to see what I'm doing

robbo277 wrote:Rory

I think that's one thing with playing two 7s against two 6s. Scotland were looking to put pressure on the breakdown, but lost out on tackling and couldn't live with Vunipola.

Yup - we were set up to go for turnovers and didn't get them. Vunipola was taking so many guys to stop that no one was left to go for the ball.

DaveM wrote:I'd imagine there will only be a small number of changes, but I'd like to see:

Clifford in at 7, with Haskell moved to 6.(Possible)
Farrell moved to 10, with Ford benched.(Possible)
Devoto starting at 12 (Possible)
Daly starting at 13, with JJ benched (Unlikely)
Goode starting at 15 with Brown dropped (Unlikely)
Lawes starting with Launchbury on the bench (Possible).

Dave,
I would be OK with most of your suggestions:
Clifford in at 7, with Haskell moved to 6.(Possible) - agree, I would try it.  Robshaw on the bench.  Not a shot a Robshaw, but we ought to see what Clifford is made of.  
Farrell moved to 10, with Ford benched.(Possible)  Agree - but I would have Alex Goode as bench cover for Farrell, not Ford.  he needs to be with his club to get his sh!t together.  
Devoto starting at 12 (Possible) No problem
Daly starting at 13, with JJ benched (Unlikely).  I would like this.  JJ was the invisible man yesterday.  Now he can be invisible on the bench.  
Goode starting at 15 with Brown dropped (Unlikely).  No, Goode is slow, Brown is simply better.  Even a mediocre Brown.  Besides I have Goode backing up Farrell (until we get Cippy in the squad as an injury replacement for Ford).  
Lawes starting with Launchbury on the bench (Possible).  Couild go either way.  If Launchbury is physically OK, give him the start again.  If not Lawes.  

I would add that I want Marler on the bench - at best.  Mako to start then let's see.

Jamie George was only on briefly but he made one big carry and was part of a very good scrum at the end.

I would like to see him given more time.

But I would also love to see Kvesic get a run v Italy.

Ps Kruis impressed me.

I'd resist wholesalle changes but it'd be good to see George get 40 min.

I agree not huge changes.
One or two tweaks that's all.

But 10 and 12 must be looked at.

Cipriani isn't going to play internationally again. Naturally the coach wants to give time to the next generation.

Realistically that's Ford because as everyone can see Farrell is a plank who lacks the vision to exploit the higher level opportunities required to succeed at this level.

However given that Ford looks depressed and Cipriani is persona non grata, what is the answer?

Persist with Ford I suggest and until Tuilagi is fit (to play twelve) give one of Burrell, Twelvetrees or Devoto a game.

Farrell is just to thick.

Ford and Farrell will be given more time. You don't break up a side on the strength of one game. They did ok.

Solid win, if a little uninspiring in some areas.

Front Row:
I thought Cole and Marler were a little disappointing, yes the scrum was much improved but I wonder how much of that was down to the reintroduction of larger hookers as opposed to them. Cole certainly gave away his usual share of stupid penalties. I would love to see Mako, George and Brookes get a good amount of game time together against Italy.

Second Row:
Launchbury looked very tired and I was wondering if there is still lingering affects from his injury. Lawes did well when he came on whilst Kruis bought his Saracens form to England. I would like to see Itoje bought onto the bench for Italy if only to get gametime.

Backrow:
Vunipola (top carrier) and Haskell (top tackler with 18) both played very well in their respective roles however Robshaw didn't appear to be at the races for some reason. I would look to bring in Kvesic at 7, with Haskell moving to 6 (but playing the same way) just to provide that extra emphasis on the breakdown and overall better balance to the backrow. I would also keep Clifford on the bench for exposure.

9 - 13:
It was clear that Care was a victim of the poor kicking shown from Ford, hence the early withdrawal, however the irony is he would've probably faired better than Youngs with the platform the pack provided later in the game following the introduction of Mako in tandem with his brother.

The wide play seemed to be too flat, stagnant and too predictable however I do not blame the 10 - 12 axis for this. The whole balance of the backline is off with Joseph, Nowell, Watson and Brown all too similar in how they attack the line, i.e. taking the ball flat almost at a standstill and relying on stepping. If England are insistent on playing a Joseph/Daly at 13 then they need a power option on the wing or at fullback, someone who will enter the line at pace and offer a point of difference. For Italy I would look to bring Roko in to provide that, with Watson moving to 15, keeping the Ford Farrell combo. Daly onto the bench.

My team for Italy:

Mako, Hartley, Cole
Launchbury, Kruis
Haskell, Billy, Kvesic
Care, Ford
Farrell, Joseph
Roko Watson, Nowell

Marler, George, Brookes, Itoje, Clifford, Youngs, Goode, Daly

Italy looked pretty good away to France both backs and forwards.  England should not treat this fixture lightly and certainly not as an experiment.  Changes should be rational, if at all.

Of the players Launchbury I thought unperformed the most as everyone had high expectations of him.  Perhaps a knock but did not look really fit.

cb, I agree with your points reference how well Italy played, but I would make a couple of changes purely on the basis that I don't Ireland, Wales, France or Australia as games for too much experiment either.

Mako deserves a start in the front row (so does George but that isn't going to happen) and the backrow and backline are still unbalanced.

I don't think who is starting out of Marler and Mako reflect how they are seen by the management. I do think it reflects where (when) they think Mako will be most effective

One thing to bear in mind that Mako was up against a 20 year old prop,Fagerson, who was making his debut - probably a year or two early because of injury to John Welsh. This meant that he was finding the few scrums he took part in to be pretty straight forward and left him fit, or at least fittish for a fat lad, for his carrying work, which he did well. Yet to be convinced about his scrummaging. Certainly Marler still doesnt convince on that front either.

lostinwales wrote:I don't think who is starting out of Marler and Mako reflect how they are seen by the management. I do think it reflects where (when) they think Mako will be most effective

Yep.

Although I'm still surprised people think we lost out in the scrums - pretty much would say there was parity against what is an in form and high class club and country scrum that we were being told would have the upper hand in a way that did not materialise

i.e. people can either big up the Scottish backrow and front row and in fact second row before the game but then give credit when they are handled with reasonable comfort to a tie (or better in the backrow), or people can say that Scotland aren't that strong in these areas, but saying both is nonsense

I thought England scrum looked very solid - considering the scotland srum bossed Aus and Aus bossed England in the WC - then thats a big improvement from England. Scrum was an area I thought we would have the advantage - at least until the subs came on but no - parity it was until the subs came on then advantage England.

GeordieFalcon wrote:Jamie George was only on briefly but he made one big carry and was part of a very good scrum at the end.

I would like to see him given more time.

But I would also love to see Kvesic get a run v Italy.

Kvesic isn't a full member of the squad and got sent home whilst Clifford was retained. It seems highly unlikely he'll feature in this 6 Nations.

I expect George will get 30 mins next week if things are going ok.

englandglory4ever wrote:Ford and Farrell will be given more time. You don't break up a side on the strength of one game.  They did ok.

They might well be, but they clearly aren't the long term answer. And I'd have more sympathy with the concept if Ford was playing well. He's not, he's struggling for club and country. Farrell is one of the best FHs in Europe and is playing well. He should be our starting 10.